The Daily Signal - Nuclear Threat Posed by Iran

Episode Date: February 13, 2024

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the threat it would pose to the U.S. would be significantly different from that of other aggressors, such as Russia, according to Simone Ledeen.  There's significant concern of “a nuclear bomb with a country that says routinely, ‘Death to America, death to Israel,’” says Ledeen, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.  With Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen firing rockets at ships in the Red Sea, the U.S. “should be targeting logistics points, leadership, [and] proxies outside of Iran in the region,” she said. “We could be engaging in some pinpoint targeting inside of Iran as well.” According to Ledeen—a senior fellow at the Austin, Texas-based Strauss Center for International Security and Law—Iran and its proxies operate like an octopus, with Iran serving as the head and militant groups such as the Houthis and Hezbollah as the "many tentacles."  Ledeen joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” ahead of her testimony Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia to explain what her message to Congress will be, and what actions the Biden administration is not taking—but should take—against Iran.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, February 13th. I'm Virginia Allen. What threat does Iran pose to the U.S. and how does Iran interact and operate through groups like the Houthis? Simone Ladeen is a senior fellow at the Strauss Center and she formally served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. She joins us on the show today to explain the threat that Iran currently poses to the U.S. and to explain what Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean for the U.S. Stay tuned for our conversation after this. Today, news you can trust feels like a rarity.

That's why the Daily Signal podcast releases a top news edition every weekday at 5 p.m. Whether driving home from work, fixing dinner, or picking the kids up from soccer practice, you can stay informed on the headlines you care about. Every show is quick and succinct, designed to keep you up to speed on the if you issues that actually matter. Catch our top news edition right here in your Daily Signal podcast feed every evening or listen first thing in the morning before catching the day's interview. And be sure to subscribe on the Daily Signal podcast so you never miss an episode. Simone Ledeen is a senior fellow at the Strauss Center and she formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

for the Middle East. Thank you so much for being with us today. We really appreciate your expertise. Thanks for the opportunity, looking forward to it. Yeah, well, we have a lot of ground to cover, not a light topic, certainly as we're talking about Iran, the Middle East, all of the tension there that almost seems to be growing right now by the hour, unfortunately. Now, you're in D.C. This week, actually, because you're testifying on Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, their subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. And this hearing is focused on the issue that really revolves around Iran, Yemen, and the threat specifically of the Houthis. Does America and our current military leaders adequately understand, do you think, the threat

that Iran and Iran-backed militias posed the United States? Do our leaders really truly understand the threat there? I think our military leaders are very well aware of the threat that Iran poses. I think that our political leaders perhaps not as much, since they are the ones making the decisions at the moment. Yeah. So given that then, since you're going to be speaking to our political leaders on Wednesday, testifying before Congress, what is your message going to be to be to them as you're going in, as you're sitting down and sharing with them, okay, this is the situation that needs to be addressed? What's top of mind for you? I think two points. First, a purely defensive posture is actually increasing Iranian aggression. And this, the problem with the Houthis is really a problem with Iran because the Houthis are one of several proxies in the region that are really controlled by Iran, trained and equipped by the Iranian regime. So that's one message that I'm going to be bringing.

The other is we do not need to engage in a large conventional war to restore deterrence and to stop these attacks from happening. And we must restore deterrence because global shipping is at risk, global commerce. We can't afford, we the world can't afford to be paying what will be required to pay to continue moving these container ships all the way around Africa. So those are really the two messages I'm going to be bringing. Yeah. And I'm looking forward to the conversation.

I hope the reception is good. Well, I want to talk a little bit more about both of those things. And we've had Victoria Coates, who I know you're friends with on the podcast, to talk about the situation in the Red Sea and those Houthi attacks on ships and just the effect that that is having on America. What do we know about the latest on those attacks? Are Houthi's firing at ships in the Red Sea daily at this point? Is it completely randomized? Is it more like a weekly occurrence?

What's the current situation? I think it's not daily, but it has been. Sometimes they have attacked, you know, from one day to the next. There is some rhyme and reason to their attacks. But, you know, initially they said they were going to be going after, Israeli flagged ships or ships that were headed to Israel, ships that were connected with Israel in some way. That is just simply not the truth.

They are attacking American ships, American flagships, European allies. They mistakenly fired on a ship that was transporting Russian gas. What's been interesting to note to me is this existence of what experts are calling a dark fleet, which is ships that are part of the, you know, Iran, China, Russia alliance. And they have been, they've been operating in the Red Sea area, obviously, for years, trying to avoid sanctions so they turn off their transponders so that we can't track. The case can't be made for sanctions evasion. But all of these ships are part of this effort, you know, to,

counter the United States, counter the influence of the United States, and our partners and allies. And so they're actually able to go through the Middle East and through the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, the Babal Mendeb, and escape without any Houthi attacks. They're completely safe. They don't have to go around the Horn of Africa like we do. And so that's part of what we're seeing. I think one other relevant thing to bring up is the types of weapons that the are using. You would expect a kind of, you know, insurgency coming from Yemen to have the types of things that you would, you know, make shift weapons, et cetera. They have some of the most, some of the most advanced weapons that we've seen. For example, anti-ship ballistic missiles. Anti-ship ballistic missiles are only a few, very few countries actually have these. They're extremely

complicated to build and to operate. And the fact that the Houthis have them and are using them and for the first time, we're actually seeing them being fired. They've never been fired before. And so this is very concerning and something that we should all be paying very close attention to because it's not the Houthis that developed this technology. It's Iran. So with that then, can we pretty much say with certainty that the Houthis got these weapons straight from Iran? Absolutely, directly from Iran. Okay. What does the impact look like on everyday Americans,

given what's happening in the Red Sea, cost of goods going up, that kind of thing? Are we seeing that played out already in the U.S.? Or not quite? We are starting to see it, but we have to kind of go through our stocks of things before we get to, you know, the items that are being transported right now. It takes time. You know, if you think about our global supply chain, They've built in, you know, several weeks, several months of, what would you call it?

Yeah. Yeah. So I would say in some cases we are seeing that. In other cases, prices already have been high and maybe perhaps they would have gone down except for the added costs that are having to be added to a lot of these shipments because they have to go around. They have to go around the Horn of Africa. And specifically, we're talking about goods that are going between Europe and Asia. That's really who transits. And obviously, we get a lot of goods from China, and those goods will have to transit, again, previously through the Red Sea area, but now around Africa.

What is the mindset of Iran's leadership? Why is it in their interest to say, okay, we're going to give these advanced weapons to the Houthis? What's running through their minds? They want to hurt us. They want to hurt Israel. They've been imposing costs on us. They want to drive us out of the Middle East. Obviously, they've shown they're able to attack Israel from Yemen.

They also have other proxies that are operating closer to Israel, obviously in Syria and, like, Lebanon, Iraq, that have been attacking U.S. interests, U.S. soldiers. We had three U.S. soldiers that were killed in Jordan, attacked from Iraq by an Iranian proxy. So this is all part of the same effort. They're just using their proxies that are located in different countries in the region, really to accomplish the same goal. It's one goal at the end of the day. And then I would also consider that we need to look at the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear state. They're very, very close to breakout. And some have surmised, some have speculated that perhaps Iran is causing all of this chaos

to distract us and others from the fact that they are extremely close to nuclear breakout. And perhaps one day they'll come out and say, we have the bomb. And by the way, I believe if that's the case, they may come out and say they have more than one device because they would want to make that point given potential reaction to the announcement. How would a nuclear Iran differ from a nuclear Russia or a nuclear North Korea? Well, a nuclear Iran is you have a nuclear bomb with a country that says, death to America, death to Israel. They've obviously been plotting and planning along those lines using every tool that they have, be it economic, be it military, through their proxies.

They're not, they don't operate in the same way that a nation state like Russia would, and you know, you could argue Russia, you know, in the last decade or so has not been acting, a stable country. But I think this is, for lack of a better term, this is next level. They're not a rational actor that I think some people would like them to be, but they've proven that they're not a rational actor. They've been given so many off-ramps over the years to sort of change their ways and come into the international fold. And they have, you know, they have aspirations for regional hegemony. They've made a lot of problems. towards that end. And I believe that a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon, would absolutely

change the calculus for all of us who have to deal with them and what that would mean as well for our close ally Israel. Yeah, huge. It's been interesting to hear just different analysis on the relationship that Iran has with so many of their different sort of terrorist militias. And one of the analogies that's loaded around is a chess map. And the analogy that's been drawn is Hamas is Iran's pawn. The Houthis are Iran's rook. And Hezbollah is Iran's queen. Is that kind of maybe an accurate framing?

I mean, that's clever. That's probably more clever than I am. I my grandfather would be appalled that I'm not sure I remember exactly what's what. I know the queen is like the big player. Yeah. So that's, I suppose that's accurate. wouldn't argue with that characterization. I like the characterization also of, you know, Iran as the head of the octopus with many tentacles. I think that's also apt. Certainly, has Balas the crown jewel,

but Hamas, the Houthis, a variety of different militias in Iraq, certainly key players to Iran as well, and they've played pivotal roles for them over the years. Are they all roughly? about the same size or is there like a drastic size difference between Hezbollah and Hamas or whatnot? Well, Hamas is quite a bit smaller than it was a couple months ago. Sure. But Hezbollah definitely the largest because you're talking about the Hezbollah is located in Lebanon, but there's also a very large diaspora Hezbollah. there's actually a large Hezbollah presence in South America in the tri-border area. A lot of people don't know this.

It's actually a big money-making operation for Hezbollah. And they have Lebanese who have lived now for generations down in the tri-border area in South America. And they've been, you know, they've been sending money back. And also involved in different plots and schemes. And, you know, we have, we have Hezbollah here in the United States, unfortunately. It's well documented. So, yeah, they're quite a bit larger than the other Iranian proxies that we're talking about. Okay.

So when it comes to the response side, obviously, yeah, I think you look across America and just the attitude towards war right now, specifically war in the Middle East. And this is where I think it's not necessarily a Republican or Democrat issue or a conservative or a liberal issue. All of America is weary of war in the Middle East. And I don't think anyone's advocating for another full on extensive war there. But yet, as you've talked about, you know, there needs to be a hard red line of holding Iran accountable and suppressing their actions. So what does a proper response look like that does. does hold powers that be accountable, but doesn't land the U.S. in another full-on Middle East War, or is that futile to think that's even possible, but thread that needle?

No, I don't, I don't think it's, I don't think it's futile at all. And I agree with that characterization as well. I mean, myself, I served as a DOD civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan. and a lot of us are still, both of my brothers served in Iraq, one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan with the U.S. Marines. And so this is very close to me like it is for so many families. And we all, you know, sort of grapple with the aftermath of what was that for, why we lost so much, we sacrificed so much for what. So I deeply feel that I understand.

understand where the folks who say that, where they're coming from. Yeah. But, you know, we are the United States of America. We cannot become isolationist. We have to pay attention to the world and our role in the world. But that doesn't mean that we have to, you know, engage in and start these huge, you know, conventional conflicts in the Middle East, especially. But I think the important thing to remember is it's not just an either or, you know,

it's not where we are right now, which is basically nothing, just some sad defensive attempts that really don't do anything other than, you know, so our military is highly skilled and they've knocked down a lot of projectiles, a lot of different projectiles that Iran and the Houthis have been firing. Israel as well. They've knocked down a bunch. Our British partners have knocked down, I think, one or two. So that's fantastic, but that's not deterrence. It's actually. it's actually so weak that it's encouraging escalation on the part of Iran and on the part of the Houthis. So we must impose costs. We have to hurt them. But that doesn't mean, again, that doesn't mean let's bomb inside of Iran. Let's start a massive conflict because I do believe that would start a

massive conflict. That's not in our interest. So what should we do? We should be targeting logistics points, leadership, you know, proxies outside of Iran in the region. We could be engaging in some pinpoint targeting inside of Iran as well, but we should not be doing massive bombing campaign inside of Iran for many reasons. But I think most importantly, the Iranian people are actually with us. They're with Israel. There have been, you know, massive protests the last few years, the women like freedom protest movement, which has been so powerful. we want to encourage those people. Those people are actually our partners. So we should actually be helping them. We should be providing them with communications equipment, with support, so that they can do what they need to do internally. We can partner with them. But the worst thing we could do is start destroying infrastructure, start doing these massive bombing campaigns where we hurt civilians. And at the end of the day, that's not in the U.S. interest. So yes, there is a way to thread this needle. And I should also mention the critical importance of sanctions.

You mentioned Victoria early on. I mean, our maximum pressure campaign that she was such a critical part of really set Iran back on its heels. And one of the most important things that it did was prevent Iran from being able to fund its proxies. So we saw, although they were still conducting attacks, they were greatly reduced. So because they simply couldn't afford it. And the payments that they were making to Hamas, to Hezbollah, actually a lot of the records are starting to come out. The Israelis are releasing records that they're finding in the old Hamas offices where payments went way down during the years where we were doing maximum pressure. So it's very clear the Biden administration at the moment is not enforcing sanctions. why not, why not? It makes no sense. And that's leading directly to these capabilities that we're seeing and the direct threat that we're now facing.

And what, in just speaking about the response, whether it's sanctions, targeted attacks, break down what is the responsibility of Congress to take action on? What is the responsibility of the president to take action on? What do they have to do together? That's a great question. In my opinion, the president should be collaborating with Congress. This should be an executive branch and legislative branch effort. Certainly, in terms of authorities, the president does have the authority to take these actions on his own. Because at the end of the day, the Houthis have already attacked commercial ships. So unarmed ships.

So we have authority. already the president has authorities to respond to that as self-defense measures. And when you can, for example, take these anti-ship ballistic missiles and prove, and we can prove without a shadow of a doubt that that technology came directly from Iran, that's, you know, legally that's part of a self-defense response. So obviously, should he do it without consulting with Congress? I would say no. but does he have the legal authority to do so? Yes. Okay. Well, we're going to be watching your testimony on Wednesday. We really appreciate just your expertise on this. And thank you for speaking to members of Congress and informing them as well. We really appreciate your expertise, Simone Liddeen. Thank you. And with that, that's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for joining us here on the Daily Signal podcast. If you have not had the chance, make sure that you check out our evening show right here in this podcast feed where we bring you the top news.

of the day. Also take a minute to subscribe to the Daily Signal podcast wherever you'd like to listen, so you never miss out on our morning or evening shows. Thanks again for being with us today. We'll see you right back here around 5 p.m. for Top News. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Bly and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.